PSX Extreme

Site Stats

EA: Medal Of Honor "Better Than Reviews Indicate"

In our estimation, Medal of Honor might be one of the most underrated and under-appreciated games of the year.

And while EA boss Patrick Soderlund told Eurogamer that developer Danger Close didn't meet EA's "quality expectations," he defends the title by saying it has been "judged harsher than it should be." Still, the game managed to sell very well, topping 1.5 million copies in only a few days time (Soderlund wouldn't provide an updated number but it's certainly higher now). Added Soderlund:

"What I can say is the game didn't meet our quality expectations. In order to be successful in that space, we're going to have to have a game that is really, really strong. Medal of Honor is to some extent judged harsher than it should be. The game is better than today's reviews are indicating."

The game has an average 75 Metacritic rating and many gamers complained that critics made too many comparisons to Call of Duty, and several military professionals have stepped up and praised the game. For our part here at PSXE, we believe we judged it for what it was but EA is taking the complaints to heart:

"I'm proud of what the game is and proud of what the team did. I just think the market is obviously telling us they think the game is X. We need to convince the market we can make something they appreciate more, particularly to be able to compete.

We're looking at that clearly. We're taking that seriously. I'm not at all saying Medal of Honor is a failure. It is a successful reboot of that franchise. We're going to be strong in the future."

We have to agree that the game could've been better from a technical standpoint. That much is true. But people might read that last set of comments and interpret them as follows- "the market is obviously telling us they think the game is X...'cough'...i.e., not Call of Duty, so we're going to make the next MoH more like CoD." Because that appeared to be the brunt of many critical problems; that it wasn't CoD...

Inferno is an instant classic, it just got a bad rap from playing like GOW when it actually improved on GOW in most ways. But the franchise will prove itself over time. There will be more, oh yes, there will be more. Visceral is a good studio and it's hard to bang a good action game into people's heads in this shooter environment. Castlevania seems to be getting undeserved attacks as well but at least it can sell on name recognition.Last edited by WorldEndsWithMe on 11/2/2010 2:21:40 PM

You name it and I'll give you an example. More environments, better platforming, better physics/weight, adherence to classical myths, more epic deaths per enemy, more original artistry and music, a more involved plot, characters that have a point. A morals system related to powers. The only thing it didn't have was super hard puzzles.

Read the poem, watch the making of the game and you'll see how much went into it.

Glad u gave me a good answer. Only problem is it's flawed, from my perspective. I have a feeling your comparing it to 3 rather than theseries as a whole. Which in case I still can't say is accurate. I got none of those things you explained especially about the plot from dantes. Ahh that game is so soulless it's frustrating! It took so much from GoW yet did nothing with it. The characters were not great either!

And the kills after each death were hardly something to compare to GoW. Idk man I respect your answer but I can't go on and agree with it. I'll give you this much though I'm gonna play through it again to see if I can find any relation to what your saying.

Just so were clear it's not a bad game. Obviously if I'm willing to play through it again! I have wanted to try the trials of st. Lucia maybe I'll do that too.

I, for one, think that while it's a good game, they can do a lot to make it better.

In terms of making it more like "cod", as hinted in this article, I sincerely hope this trend of making one game like another stops soon. Obviously, devs gotta make a profit somewhere down the line, but I'm a fan of diversity. I really don't want to have to play the same game 30 times over.

Sure the campaign is short. Very short. But you know what? I don't care. The campaign is so damn fun and immersive, I completed it twice in 1 day and moved over to Tier 1.

This installment of Medal of Honor is what I was looking for. Realism. It's like a cross between SOCOM and COD. It bleeds the realism of past SOCOM games with a healthy dressing of COD heart stopping moments.

Firefights feel like they should offline and online. Bullets screaming by nearly dropping you to the ground. Explosions kicking up clouds of dirt and debris. The anxiety that sets in as your cover disintegrates from your view. Completely out of control yet very manageable with the right teammates.

If you have no intention of playing the multiplayer, then I don't believe the game is worth the $60. $40-45 maybe. Although, this game is absolutely worth a rental. Do yourself justice and at least rent the game.

A word of advice, make sure you pay attention to your commanding officer and their orders. If you don't give the game 100% of your attention, you'll miss something and get lost. It does lack a sense of direction should you attempt to fly through missions (as stated in PSXE's review of the game).

There is plenty of room for improvement but overall, the game was a wonderful experience for myself.

When will people understand you do not need to make a FPS shooter anything like CoD because CoD is ridiculously popular. You want to know where Danger Close went wrong? They used the Unreal engine, why not build their own? The MP utilized the Frostbite Engine and I feel that the Frostbite engine is the premier engine to be used on any FPS, not only can it support massive maps with epic battles the sound design is Far Superior than anything from any other shooter. I didn't think the SP was bad, but you can just see how it looks and feels like well, Meh.

I find it sad that EA feels that they need to make Medal of Honor more like Call of Duty in order to succeed when it was CoD that imitated MoH in the first place.

I bought this and I was psyched for it. I just finished the campaign last night and I found that it was overall quite enjoyable. It doesn't have that action movie feel that the CoD games have but then again, it wasn't meant to have that feeling. On a technical standpoint, the graphics were very black and white, meaning that they were either excellent or horrible at times. The sound effects, music and voiceovers were all spectacular, though.

I must say, I didn't care much for the Gunfighters mission. It was very annoying trying to shoot targets when your helicopter is bobbing up and down and swaying left and right. Every other mission was very enjoyable, though. I also found that the ending had much more of an emotional impact over anything seen in a CoD game. Yes, Danger Close could've done a better job and probably should've considering their competition but they shouldn't be ridiculed for the job they did do. Medal of Honor is an extremely well-written insight to what men and women in the military deal with every day and it is definitely underappreciated.

A couple things that bothered me; as Ben put it, the alien-looking goat. That scared me when it first popped on screen. I was like, "What the *bleep* is that?!" After a moment it occured to me, "Oh, that must be that alien goat. Strange." Second, it would've been nice to see a woman soldier in this whether you played as her or she accompanied you. Danger Close's write-up following the climax of the game states the men and women of the U.S. military, yet you don't see a woman during gameplay. They should probably keep that in mind for the next go around.

Overall, people should play this title. Yes, it's short but it's still good. Plus you get an HD copy of Medal of Honor: Frontline. It doesn't get much better than that.

man, i was just getting into the game when it ended. personally thought it was overrated.nothing really memorable in the sp. mp is a lot better but the limited maps leaves a lot to be desired with the game.

Other then the length of the single player campaign by Danger Close, which was too short, I was loving the fact that it wasn't CoD.

Infact, what lets down MoH isn't Danger Close, I believe that DICEs multiplayer lets the game down. And even that is still strong.

I was just talking about this last night with CharlesD. It was in regards the multiplayer and how it really could of done with more tweaking before being released. Too much bullet sponging and lag issues and not to mention the ridiculous level of sniping. Yet it's still a great experience. Just felt rushed out in time to beat CoD:BO. I'm sure we'll see most issues patched soon enough. I do believe it's too soon for them to be releasing DLC until the game is fixed though. However, it's all fixable. I'm just more disappointed with DICEs contribution then Danger Close.

Bad Company 2 is a fantastic game. Thats kinda why I'm a little disappointed and even surprised at what DICE have pulled out in MoH.

It's still a good multiplayer and with some patches will be a great multiplayer. I just would of preferred to have MoH released after CoD:BO rather then before, if the plan was to not have them going head to head in the same month. It would of given that little more time to add the little extra tweaks that we'll more than likely see soon enough.

Only now more people are psyched about CoD:BO because of average reviews for MoH. Just a little more time would of really made a difference.Last edited by frostface on 11/2/2010 11:35:06 AM

Couple of problems. First was their choice to use Unreal and only show us prerendered cut scenes until the games release. Making the game look a whole lot better than it does. Too many bugs and hang ups. They would have been better off just using DICE's FrostBite engine for the whole game. Second, the game was too short and boring for it's own good. It didn't start to get fun and exciting until the last hour and a half of the game. Then it just ended. Third, while the multiplayer has/had promise, it falls short of expectations. It's almost as if DICE purposely half assed the multiplayer to not over shadow Bad Company 2. After beating it and spending some time with the multiplayer, I can tell you this was a store credit not well spent on my part. The game was a giant disappointment all around and I won't be trusting EA's hype train ever again.Last edited by Jawknee on 11/2/2010 11:22:59 AM

"It's almost as if DICE purposely half assed the multiplayer to not over shadow Bad Company 2"

LOL That's basically what I said to a friend of mine on whether he should get it or save his money. That and the single player being way too short.

EDIT: To add some perspective, with BF:BC2 released back in March, BC2: Vietnam due in the near future, BF3 (due next year?) and some work on Criterion Games' NFS:HP, I could totally see DICE being swamped. With BC2 being very popular, and not taking any chances with their premiere asset, Battlefield; I can see how something had to suffer.Last edited by Simcoe on 11/2/2010 3:15:04 PM

I first off love this game. I don't bring down games because of graphics because I know how hard code is and although some developers have the tools to make games almost flawless like naughty dog, some devs. suffer in those areas. I also work in autoCAD which in some cases may be used in development process. it's a program that I, even using it frequently, can understand hiccups in the process of development. I'm not by any means giving any one a free pass in the graphics department either! It is kind of disheartening to know that games like uc2 can be done but on an occasional basis we get projects with terrible framerates, screen tearing and the likes. But just Cus fallout 3 has terrible framerate issues that even cause my ps3 to freeze, doesn't mean I don't like it! It's one of the games I really enjoy! I tend to look past graphics and enjoy the core of the game in many cases, if it is flawed.

But I also want to point out that I've talked to plenty of different people, veterans included that say its one of the best single players they've played and that the mp is a huge bonus. I have to agree! I also understand length is annissue which it is. I can say the games perfect but the length would still be an issue.

That leaves me with it is severely underrated! It is a must play wether it's now at 60 bux or later at 20. You should play this game!Last edited by bigrailer19 on 11/2/2010 11:58:51 AM

Yea but if a dev is going to ask us for $60 a game they should at least make their best effort to get the game running as best as it can. Playing Vanquish right now. That game oozes technical quality. Not a perfect game as far as gameplay ad story goes but Platinum really made sure the game is running as best as they could make it run.

I don't care what anyone says the way this game looks shouldn't have anything to do with price! I will however say that the length of the sp, if it wasn't for the mp, could affect the price of the game.

I do understand your concept, and I don't think anywhere any company is just releasing games despite how they look and play. Some developers just have the right tools, teams, financial stability and help from publishers. But if a developer doesn't have that they still have put their time and money in to a game to charge $60. If u don't wanna pay that that's up to the consumer.Last edited by bigrailer19 on 11/2/2010 12:27:52 PM

"I don't care what anyone says the way this game looks shouldn't have anything to do with price!"

With this logic then you should have no problem in paying full price for games with crappy graphics or last gen graphics. If we dont hold these devs to a certain standard then there will be no progress. I for one would be ashamed as a game designer to release a half assed, buggy, ugly product. Consumers who spend time and money on these games deserve better.

Last gen and crappy graphics are two completely different things Cus I would pay for a game like GoW 2.

And if that's what u take from my quote then so be it. I'll defend it all day long. I know how hard it is to get a game to a certain level and after that it becomesMore difficult. I'm not going to sit here and say if all games don't look like UC2 then I'm not buying them because at the end ofthe day ND has some of the best resources around.

Again I hear what your saying I really do! And I'm glad that some people won't let poor developing take over! But I don't hold graphics as what I look forward to most in a game! I love hood looking and running game as much as you but I'm obviously a little more linient.

It's not that I'm ok with a game looking like crap Cus I'm not ok with that. But MoH does not fall into that category. In fact despite the night levels which I'll admit sometimes looked bland, was actually pretty easy on the eyes. I'll go as far to say some detail in the game was pretty awesome! The sound and guns included! Some of the best sound I've heard from guns. Not to mention the collision detection was superb!

Hopefully that clears it up more! I'm with you that a developer should put time into making it great looking. I'm also ok with a game having some mishaps. But more on topic I'm speaking of MoH in particular when I say I'll defen it everyday Cus it's not crappy graphically! As I said sometimes it shines very very bright!

i love this game,the only thing i'm pissed at sometimes is saving DURING a multiplayer game. i mean it stops me then all of a sudden im dead because someone caught up to me while i was running and stopped.

Me to Johnld, absolutely love it is my fav. shooter this year. But also that sounds like something that happens to me. But whenever someone on my friends list logs on my game stops lol. Only for a sec and I've never died because of it. But I know what ur talking bout!

With so much emphasis on multiplayer these days, and the fact that my friends will never play more unique multiplayer games, (the bastards...), I want a game that can identify what makes a good host. I'm sick of playing with laggy hosts. Also, a major problem with programming is that people with bad internet have the advantage ...

Well at first I thought that this game was better than MW2 but then during the single player campain the AI that I am supposed to follow through a cave refuses to move and you can't proceed without him. This would be fine as a it only happended once little glitch but since it happens every single time I play the level and keeps me from completing the game then the game has lost points for me

Almost had this happen to me. I was the one who couldn't get off the ATV! i tried everything but couldn't get out. I got a bit pissed and let it on for a while. Then got back, tried some other maneuvers then finally got off. methinks the game didn't want me to stop where i stopped before the cutscene, as there was likely no leg-space on where i stopped, and i could only disembark on the left side

Just saying. It's kinda stupid for a publisher to come out and cry like this. Back your damn product! Be proud of what you've put out. If you think the reviews turned me away from MoH, I can guarantee you that these statements have.

do i smell a Medal of Honor: calling of duty coming haha i loved MoH critics whine and nit pick about every little thing that nobody cares about cuz "ohhhhhhhhh the loading is atrocious cuz u have to wait 10 seconds longer then some other game" annoying all i care about is 1 is tha game fun 2 is the game good 3 is the game good no i dont care if there is no grass so the game looks bland where my virtual char steps i dont care doesnt make the game better or worse

i liked MoH a lot. i think it can be said of any realm of entertainment, reviewers are often the most critical, out of anyone else, of a piece.

this particular game exasperates a point i've become acutely aware of: i usually dont agree with reviewers. I dont like COD. i'm /glad/ that MoH wasnt a CoD clone. i'm pretty sure i'm not alone, and when EA releases the second one and its as close to CoD as they can get it, i wont be buying it.

let treyarch make CoD. the fact everyone wants all shooter games to play like CoD doesnt do anything to dispel the complaint that shooters are all the same. they complained about the feel of Killzone 2. i had friends tell me they wouldnt play battlefield BC/2 because the maps were too big.

IMAO, CoD needs to disappear for a while. theyre starving out innovation in the genre. the fact that only one studio is cranking them out will help, for now.

I like the game a lot. It left a lot to be desired in the campaign with all of the bugs, but the storyline and writing was great. The MP is good, but DICE can do no wrong in my eyes. My only complaint with the MP is the lack of depth of what you can unlock. I dont want MW's perks or killstreaks(which I cant stand, by the way), just a few weapons or gun mods. Sure its coming in DLC form.....

well i was going to get this game so i thought, rented it from gamefly along with the new WWE smackdown Vs raw and well i totally forgot about the whole EA thing but after not being able to test out the MP in MOH i sent it back the same day.. the whole 10 $ just to play online is not even right, gamefly only has a few years left before hello blockbuster... 10 bucks a rental only to get home and pay another 10 bucks just to test the online playability.. so i would be in 20 bucks just to test the full game.... now if i like it i have to go to a store and spend another 60 bucks to buy it...... where does this seem insane... this is all about money and greed why not supply rentals with a temp code that would allow you to play and see if you want to buy it... they just said F everyone its all about me... well you wont get one penny from me.. ill stick to COD until they charge too...

no its not, i think a 7.5 average is if anything a little high.graphics, gameplay, sound, level design, character design everything was the exact definition of meh!nothing in that game impressed me, if thats not the defining of average than nothing is!

EA, you want a "good" war game?than why not publish 6 Days in Fallujah?that is looking like a freaking awesome game!and stop trying to turn the battlefield series into COD!

imo no game has been perfect except U1&2. since then people been spoiled and want any game after that to come out perfect but that not going to happen anytime soon. reason why uncharted 2 is way ahead of its time. so for other games to catch up with quality devs will need a time machine to catch up. cod is only a few steps ahead of moh...nothing more then a walk in the park. give moh some credit for going against a game like cod and i hope both games push each other to give us our moneys worth.

I disagree and say the reviews got it spot on. They were mediocre and so was the game. Buggy single-player with a campaign that felt anti-climactic. The multiplayer had bags of potential but messed up due to not having enough maps (especially Combat Mission) and people not playing it properly (sniping instead of capturing points). CM would be vastly improved simply by patching the sniper rifles out.

MOH was my biggest disappointment of the year. Thankfully it sounds like there are some good trade-in options coming up for Black Ops, so we'll see if that's any better.